Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] OUR WG TABLE - For Final Inputs!

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Just to be clear,

I do not want this group to intepret the Board's resolution.  Avri, your "no 
means no" is a little simplistic in this example.

Does no mean just a registry operator with a contract, or does it apply to RSPs 
(a term we have coined in this group)?  Does the word "registry services" mean 
all of the services defined in the contracts, or does it have the more limited 
definition like the one in the Registry Continuity plans?  Does separation in 
the motion just refer to ownership as in legal ownership, or does it equate to 
the definitions most commonly used by at least US agencies at least of control. 
 Everyone in the group will probably have a different answer.

You were the one (along with a few others) that said it was a waste of time for 
the Board to define what they meant.  Now I am saying it is a waste of our time 
for us to define what they meant.  Staff will do that for all f us in a couple 
of weeks.


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun May 16 05:50:29 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] OUR WG TABLE - For Final Inputs!


Hi,

While I do not not want to become someone who is known for defending the Board, 
I think it somewhat slanderous to say the Board did not know what it meant.  I 
think that even the Board understands that - No Means No.  Even children are 
being taught that one these days.

I do believe you are right in the fact that the staff is likely to interpret it 
as it is wishes and that surprise is still awaiting us.  On the other hand e 
words of the motion are out there, and if the staff interprets them other then 
"No Means No" we will have something to comment on in DAGv4.

I do not really care if the line is in the table.  If I remember correctly, it 
was you who started the question rolling of how to interpret the Board's 
relatively straightforward motion (2010.03.12.17). 

And lest we forget:

> Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy becomes available from the GNSO, and 
> approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD program, that 
> policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as part of the New gTLD 
> Program.

Notice on this one, it does not say before DAGv4 but 'prior to the launch'.


a.


On 15 May 2010, at 22:20, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> I would not make those changes to the line on what the Board's motion means 
> as I now firmly believe not even the board knew what it meant. The staff will 
> interpret it as they see fit, so actually, I think we should just remove the 
> whole line about what the Board's proposal is.  If the Board doesn't know 
> what it means, we should not be reading into what some people on this believe 
> it means....and frankly a number of people on this list have said "who cares 
> what the board meant."  
> 
> So please delete the whole line.  We can reinsert in a couple of weeks when 
> the staff issues its vertical integration proclamation.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete 
> the original message.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:23 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] OUR WG TABLE - For Final Inputs!
> 
> 
> Hi Kathy,
> 
> Re MMA - what you there reflects the first MMA but not the update.
> 
> in the second the initial Cross ownership was 0 with the possibility to 
> request more.
> 
> (i am sure the M&Ms will correct me if i am wrong.)
> 
> And we were working on a third update to reflect the comments we had gotten, 
> but it sounds like it is getting a bit late for any more input and we have 
> not reached consensus on it ourselves yet.
> 
> 
> 
> also on the Board's line:
> 
> as i read the motion:
> 
>>> there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and 
>>> those acting as registrar.  No co-ownership will be allowed.
> 
> 
> i think the Board row should read:
> 
> 
> 0=0  as  RSPs offer Registry services
> P=0  as  RSPs offer Registry services
> 
> Incidentally if we wish to add extra columns for control as well as just CO  
> - since  strict separation covers control as well as cross-ownership - those 
> would be 0 as well in the Board motion - and i expect in MMA as the starting 
> point as well.
> 
> Q=yes if it is acting as a registrar (this one has some wiggle room since 
> they don't always act as registrars)
> 
> R=n/a
> 
> I wasn't going to get into the game of 'what's your interpretation'  but 
> since we are putting it into a table, I figured i should indicate how I saw 
> it since it seems to differ from what is there.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
>